Our scene opens inside Avanti's, a fine Italian deli and eatery which also sells beer. A young patron has just picked out a couple of six packs and brought them to the clerk at the front counter to pay for them...
Clerk: Great choice, that's one of my favorites.
Patron: Yeah, so how much is it going to be?
Clerk: Well I'll need to see your ID first.
Patron: Why?
Clerk: I can't sell these to you until I know you're at least 21.
Patron: I don't have it on me, but clearly I look at least 21, don't I?
Clerk: How you look is irrelevant. I need your ID or else I can't sell you the beer.
Patron: Well I have ID, I'm 21.
Clerk: Great, so show it to me.
Patron: I said I don't have it on me.
Clerk: That's a problem for you then.
Patron: You're the one with the problem. Why are you being so closed-minded?
Clerk: How's that?
Patron: You're being completely closed-minded to the possibility that I am 21.
Clerk: Oh no, I'm completely willing to entertain that possibility, but I can't accept it unless I have a good reason, and you haven't offered one.
Another patron: Oh I know him, he's 21.
Patron: There, you see?
Clerk: That's not sufficient.
Patron: What?! He just told you I'm 21!
Clerk: If he knows you, he might lie for you, or you've successfully mislead him into believing you're 21. No, all I'll accept is your ID.
Patron: That's pretty closed-minded.
Clerk: No, I'm just not willing to accept a claim like you're 21 on questionable evidence.
Patron: You don't think saying I'm not 21 without any evidence isn't being closed-minded?
Clerk: I'm not saying you're not 21. I'm saying you've offered no evidence for me to accept that you're 21.
Patron: Same thing.
Clerk: No, actually they're two quite different things.
Patron: I've offered you evidence.
Clerk: It was inadequate.
Patron: Says you.
Clerk: Says any rational person.
Patron: So now I'm irrational?
Clerk: Accepting an unwarranted claim is irrational.
Patron: You just don't want to sell these to me.
Clerk: Not if you can't prove you're 21.
Patron: An ID can't prove I'm 21. I could have a fake ID. It's impossible to know absolutely if I'm 21 or not.
Clerk: I wasn't using "prove" as an absolute proof, but rather as a valid warrant for acceptance of a claim.
Patron: Your choice of what's valid is arbitrary.
Clerk: No, it's not.
Patron: Just saying it's not isn't an argument, it's an assertion.
Clerk: Sort of like just saying it is?
Patron: Well it is.
Clerk: Nice argument. At least I explained to you why your warrants weren't valid.
Patron: But you're still volitionally dismissing evidence.
Clerk: "Volitional" doesn't imply arbitrary.
Patron: Well you're not going to sell a lot of beer being so closed-minded.
Clerk: I'll sell plenty to those able to verify they're 21.
Patron: You won't sell to me.
Clerk: Because you can't verify you're 21.
Patron: I tried.
Clerk: Try harder.
Patron: No matter what I do, you won't sell to ME.
Clerk: Come back with some ID and let's see if that's true.
2009-07-17
Closed-minded?
Give this post a thumbs up
I dig this post
Vote up on The Atheist Spot
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
LOL! Excellent analogy.
I'd be pissed if I was waiting in line behind that guy.
Cute. But in order for your analogy to have true parallels, the customer would have to insist that the clerk accept everyone as being at least 21. And then he'd have to force her to get drunk with him.
I'm not so sure. I think he'd deny everyone else's age claims as untrue and accept only his age claim, for there can be only one true age claim.
I wouldn't want to be behind that guy, either. Incidentally, I did have to card people before, but the arguments were far less involved. They did sometimes have a poor sap waiting for it to end.
RALMFAO!
And it's good to see MY BLOG can generate such wit!
Fuckin'-A I'm taking some credit.
Not that excellent of analogy, Chief. To make it accurate in terms of our latest soiree, when the patron presents his first ID, they talk about it for a bit, then the clerk alludes to some undisclosed problem they are unwilling to further elaborate upon. So, befuddled but not discouraged, the patron hands the clerk three more forms of ID, and at this point, not wanting to make the effort, the clerk simply walks into the bathroom to go poo, calling the patron names like "douche, troll and jack-ass" the whole way.
Oh, and the clerk is the one wearing the Rationalist T-Shirt!
No, no, no. You got it all wrong See-El.
First the patron comes to the counter, and the clerk asks for ID.
The patron then says "That's not how you're supposed to ask. You're supposed to say 'Do you have any scientifically usable form of identification?'"
The clerk says: What's the difference?
The patron says: "If you don't know, I'm not telling you, you're the clerk, but if you take a quick look in my kitchen at home there are good examples there that will help you."
The clerk asks: "Why do I have to go to your house to get information about how to ask you for an ID? Why can't you just show me your ID?"
The patron responds: "Because a good, well trained clerk should know how to ask for ID."
The clerk then throws up her hands and says "Here, take the fuckin' beer. Leave me alone."
It is 'unobjective' to accept unproven claims. Rationality has nothing to do with that. Nice try. Unproven claims, if they come from a credible source can be more valid than unproven claims coming from a non-credible source.
Example: If the patron were 90 years of age, then there would be plenty of other cues for the clerk in your story to go off of, and therefore wouldn't have to validate the claim of being over 21. In that case it wouldn't be 'irrational' for the clerk to accept the claim even though no ID was furnished.
To make the analogy represent cl, I would have had to have the patron keep saying his ID was at home and repeatedly call the clerk closed-minded for not wanting to go back to his house to check it out.
Oh, I see SI already pointed that out. ;)
A 90 year old would certainly have some proof of being over 21, no doubt.
EVILution is an unwarranted claim, too.
There is plenty of evidence for evolution.
Is not.
Just go to the zoo Gideon, and then ask yourself "how can I not have evolved?". It's just obvious by looking at nature that evolution created all of life on this planet. Just look at the logical order of nature, it doesn't make any sense that there would be a magic creator who did it all, there's not any magic in this world. How could something natural ever come from something supernatural Gideon? Jeez, use your brain dammit!
QF, I don't frequent zoos, out of the fear I'll see you there doing naughty things to the bear cubs.
Besides, why don't you use YOUR brain, dammit, and see the diversity of CREATIVITY apparent in nature, AND, using your own term, LOGIC in all of it. Blind chance doesn't entail logic in any way, shape, or form, and there is too much order, as you say, in nature, to condone any randomness in it's occurrence.
I disagree with you Gideon, nature very much so does produce the complex and beautiful diversity. Anything that can be made from the periodic table of elements can be produced by nature, sometimes by our own intelligent nature which is a product of billions of years of evolution and other times by all the various other organisms in nature that also evolved. There is nothing magical about nature Gideon, it all makes sense when it gets examined more closely. You may think that the millions of geometries that you see all around you had an intelligent designer (i.e. human), but humans didn't make mountains and the planets you know, they're made from natural processes independent of humans, there is nothing supernatural about a mountain or a planet and their formations make good sense when you examine the geology of it up close.
You may think that the millions of geometries that you see all around you had an intelligent designer (i.e. human), but humans didn't make mountains and the planets you know...
I don't equate what man designs with what God has made. Just because they don't intersect at right angles, doesn't make the basic design features of natural objects any criteria for what constitutes proper intelligent design.
That's right... man didn't make this world, God did. He did it using a means and process that humans don't understand. That doesn't mean that we can't accept that He did, in fact, make this world and the universe.
Can you explain how a woman's body works, QF? Does that stop you from enjoying her, not understanding the forces that give her being? The same with nature. We can intelligently assume that a higher intelligence formed the natural world and us, and even Richard Dawkins, the mighty guru of infidels, concedes that there MAY be a God... just not the God of the Hebrews, Whom he is prejudiced against, for some reason.
I go easy on you, QF, because your temperament is of the technical, choleric persuasion, not the deep-thinking, melancholic art-appreciative variety.
And, the variety in nature belays any supposition that chance and time... no matter how many zeros you attach to the number... had anything whatsoever to do with it.
We can intelligently assume that a higher intelligence formed the natural world and us
You *can*, but you should leave out the word "intelligently". :)
the variety in nature belays any supposition that chance and time... no matter how many zeros you attach to the number... had anything whatsoever to do with it.
I agree with Gideon 100% on this. The formula of chance + time doesn't work. You need to add "natural selection" right there in the middle of those two.
Natural selection still supposes the organism can somehow anticipate and integrate any changes needed to survive any environmental change before it succumbs to it... another highly improbable occurrence! It's not the same as horses growing hair before winter, y'know!
'Psychic' doesn't cut it, in the REAL world!
There are geometries of all sorts in nature Gideon, and there are perfectly natural explanations for all such geometries, no intelligence is required for the formation and existance of a mountain or volcanic island or lake or canyon or any other natural geologic formation. One needs not invoke magic in order explain any of those geologic formations, even though they do follow repetitive and often overwhelmingly beautiful fractal geometries. The forces of tectonics and erosion are what give shape to the natural surface area of the Earth. The surface structure of the Earth, rocks and minerals that make up the soil, can all indeed be made up of atomic elements on the periodic table as can the human body or any organic being. We all weigh via atomic mass under the forces of gravitation, all are susceptible to and structured by the atomic and molecular forces of electricity. It is form of matter that shapes our conscious experience, how the very organic material neurons in the brain are structured, the percentages and locations of the neuroactive molecules and ions in the bloodstream, all of it is natural instead of magical Gideon.
Natural selection still supposes the organism can somehow anticipate and integrate any changes needed to survive any environmental change before it succumbs to it....
Natural Selection does no such thing, Gideon. That part was the "chance" you mentioned. Mutations are a mechanism of evolution.
They occur in almost every creature born. If the mutation happens to have a beneficial effect, then that organism is more likely to survive and reproduce (Natural Selection). As you see, it can happen in as little as a single generation - most probable during an environmental extremity.
If the environment is changing in a slow gradient, the evolutionary change will spread through the population more slowly (the "time" you mentioned) as long as the mutation remains valuable to survival.
I hope this helped. :)
Gideon "EVILution is an unwarranted claim, too."
Obviously. Clearly things like mutation and natural selection are bunk. Sexual selection as well. The fossil column? Bunk. Comparative genetics? Bunk. Common descent? Now that's just ridiculous!
"Blind chance doesn't entail logic in any way, shape, or form, and there is too much order, as you say, in nature, to condone any randomness in it's occurrence."
Well, then it's a good thing that it's random mutation and natural selection then, isn't it? For a second I almost thought you were arguing against the Theory of Evolution. Then it turned out that you were thinking of something else. Something dark and moist, probably. Was it brownies?
Oh. That was me. Anybody wanna go get some brownies?
"Natural selection still supposes the organism can somehow anticipate and integrate any changes needed to survive any environmental change before it succumbs to it... another highly improbable occurrence! It's not the same as horses growing hair before winter, y'know!"
What? Again, this will probably give you déjà vu, but pick up copies of Your Inner Fish, Making of the Fittest, Endless Forms Most Beautiful, Relics of Eden, Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins & Why Evolution Is True. That way you'll know what you're arguing against.
"There are geometries of all sorts in nature Gideon, and there are perfectly natural explanations for all such geometries, no intelligence is required for the formation and existance of a mountain or volcanic island or lake or canyon or any other natural geologic formation."
None that you're aware of, anyway.
Then, again... there are many things in this life you're unaware of, aren't there? Think about that.
John... then explain to me what, on the most elemental level, triggers these mutations?
And... you speak of mechanisms, which, are generally created and do not pop into existence on their own, from nowhere. How is it that life can develop these mechanisms on it's own, or foresee any possible need or use for them... and why, as you say, do only certain life forms have them?
Modus... I KNOW what and WHO I am arguing against... you do not! You ascribe great accomplishment to the teachings of fallen angels... life forms that your great 'science' hasn't yet discovered. You can't even find Bigfoot, and you're ready to write off spiritual beings? You've already concluded what constitutes truth on incomplete (by yours and others own admission) evidence. On the one hand, you say that you're always discovering new things and updating science, having to do away with what doesn't fit. I say that you haven't even BEGUN to discover what is out there, pertaining to this matter.
The principles and truth contained in the Bible are eternal... they have withstood the ravages of time, and are still relevant to this day, whereas your humanistic beliefs have only been around a comparatively short time and have been constantly updated, changed, and refuted by your own adherents.
Add to this the FACT that you are a minority in this world... that most people tend toward a faith (outside of Atheism) of some kind, and, how does that stack up in your world of cold, mathematical prognostication where equations dictate what probability anything has in relevancy?
If I didn't know for FACT that Humanism is the latest attempt in a long series of malevolent attempts to destroy Christianity, I'd cut you some slack in your ignorance. Majoring in pseudo-realities, though, isn't something that engenders respect from me.
As I said earlier... one could recite the entire library of Mad Magazine from memory, and it might impress some, but, in all relevance, it wouldn't prove all that beneficial in the long run. And, that's what Humanism and EVILution are to me... irrelevant.
Gideon "I KNOW what and WHO I am arguing against…"
Capitalizing it doesn’t make it true. I AM A MODERN MAJOR-GENERAL. See?
"You can't even find Bigfoot, and you're ready to write off spiritual beings?"
Huh? Bigfoot? Really? Bigfoot isn't science. It's pseudoscience. Folk tales, a couple of footprints and a blurry film. I'd say that the probability of hoax is far higher than that of Bigfoot.
"You've already concluded what constitutes truth on incomplete (by yours and others own admission) evidence."
Provisional truth, based on the data so far. How is that bad? How is skepticism bad? Doubt? Being sure without evidence is bad. Being sure in the face of conflicting evidence is worse.
"The principles and truth contained in the Bible are eternal... they have withstood the ravages of time, and are still relevant to this day…"
Own any slaves?
"...whereas your humanistic beliefs have only been around a comparatively short time and have been constantly updated, changed, and refuted by your own adherents."
Yeah! Take that, progress based on evidence and reason!
"Add to this the FACT that you are a minority in this world…"
So was Jesus. Take that, poor logic!
...that most people tend toward a faith (outside of Atheism) of some kind, and, how does that stack up in your world of cold, mathematical prognostication where equations dictate what probability anything has in relevancy?"
What people believe has no effect on what is. Some 40% of Americans think that the world is 6-10k old. A smaller percentage think that Saddam was behind 9/11. A majority of western kids believe in Santa Claus.
"If I didn't know for FACT that Humanism is the latest attempt in a long series of malevolent attempts to destroy Christianity…"
If facts hamper religion and reason destroys it, what position are you arguing from? The bad one?
"I'd cut you some slack in your ignorance."
I've cut you considerable slack on yours. Get those books I linked. Seriously. Excuse my french, but you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
"Majoring in pseudo-realities, though, isn't something that engenders respect from me."
I could say the same thing. I can respect you. I can't respect your willfull ignorance. Doubly so for your pride in it.
"As I said earlier... one could recite the entire library of Mad Magazine from memory, and it might impress some, but, in all relevance, it wouldn't prove all that beneficial in the long run."
But a passage from the Tanakh, now that's important!
"And, that's what Humanism and EVILution are to me... irrelevant."
Moral philosophy based on reason is not irrelevant. It's what separates us from the other animals. ToE is not irrelevant, unless you consider your family tree to be so. Reason and facts are only irrelevant if you think that your neighbours and the world is too.
Quantum_Flux,
You told Gideon, "It's just obvious by looking at nature that evolution created all of life on this planet."
Now, I'm no evolution-denier, but in a spirit of rational rigueur I have to ask: how is this argument any more sound than the argument claiming creation is "just obvious?" Many times in science, what was "obvious" was wrong. Regardless of who believed it or why, it used to be "obvious" that the sun circled the Earth, right?
Modusoperandi - Be told! If "you can't even find Bigfoot," how do you honestly expect to find the brownies?
Brownies are easy to find. They're in the oven. That's like their Smurf village.
Unsuccessful idea
It's great to see a blog of this quality. I learned a lot of new things and I'm looking forward to see more like this. Thank you.
Post a Comment